Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/kettering

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

kettering

FW07 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well hello. User:Gladstone/sig 12:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	2	Ah Kettering. That bastion of all that is funny in Northamptonshire. I have fond memories, for while I've never actually been there, the first girl I <Rated R18, please leave your credit card details here for the uncensored version> and <Seriously, you're going to have to cough up before I let you read it> came from nearby. Corby actually, the home of the world's second most famous item of totally useless hotel room electrical equiment. Which brings me on to the article. It's an article about a place so: Refer to it as an independent nation, or the <something> capital of <somewhere>: check! Place things that aren't in Kettering, in Kettering: check! Make in-joke type references to a neighbouring town with no-one outisde those two towns knows or cares about: check! Refer to the shite football team of no note as the greatest team since, well, the greatest ever: check! Basically, it's bollocks. It's the same as one million and one other articles about towns which, far from being known to Codeine's Mum, wouldn't be noticed if they were to spontaneously combust.
Concept:	2	File:Zser.jpg If I put picutres of breasts, no-one will notice that the article is crap Please see above. Coming up with a new concept for a town is difficult, because there's so many things to consider. I've been trying to do it myself, since my home town is basically a pile of bobbins. It needs to have an idea - what are you trying to say about the place? It needs to have a coherent narrative - does the article say what you want it to say? Most of all, it needs to have many, many pictures of breasts, because frankly I struggle to see how an article about Northampton's shitter neighbour is going to be of redeeming value otherwise. And as any fule nose, an article with breasts can redeem even the most useless writing - how do you think The Daily Sport has survivied all these years? Trivia note: the Daily Sport, despite it's obvious place in the literary cannon as the foremost purveyor of high quality tittage, does indeed employ a head sport journalist. I know, I know, it's like Playboy employing an investigative reporter, but apparently some things are stranger than fiction!
Prose and formatting:	2	It's just a list of statements about Kettering, and most of them aren't funny. But hey, it's a pee review, I'll do it properly! Formatting It's got two sections, so not a lot to say. The writer obviously has worked out how to add headers, and divide the text up into paragraphs, which is a start. Spelling and Grammar Poor - it appears there has been no attempt to spellcheck at all. Britian, therock, ..football club There..., missing punctuation at the end of sentences... It's too train of though, and as anyone who has read any of my earlier reviews will note, I hate trying to decipher other people's train of thought.
Images:	0	File:Vida guerra2.jpg See? I bet no-one even reads what I write in his section! In the famous words of Les Dennis' computer: URGH-UURGH! No pictures, no points. See concept above.
Miscellaneous:	3	You are feeling sleepy horny... This should be an average, but that 0 will draw it down further. And since I want it come out as "Prbably VFD/QVFD", I have given it 3 so it's closer to 10 overall. I'm nice like that you see.
Final Score:	9	File:Bucks16.jpg I'm just trying to labour the point a bit now... It's a pointless waste of time getting someone to review an article like this frankly, because there's no knowing what's going to be done with it once there are a few ideas floating around. Just don't let it turn into a generic place article, because they're boring, unfunny, prone to vandalism, and entirely devoid of pictures of breasts.
Reviewer:	User:Gladstone/sig 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)